Re: -> Dispensing with hierarchy <-


Richard Moore

Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2001 10:01:23 -0800
From: David C. Korten
Organization: PCDForum
To: "Richard K. Moore" <•••@••.•••>
Subject: Re: ->  Dispensing with hierarchy  <-

Richard: This is a brilliant response--deep, poetic, and 
profound. Thanks for sharing it.

David Korten

From: •••@••.•••
Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2001 02:38:23 EST
Subject: Re: ->  Dispensing with hierarchy  <-
To: •••@••.•••

    rkm>>  Don't give up hope.  It's always darkest before the dawn.

it looks real close to dawn in Washington these days so I supsoe 
I should be  a bit cheerful.

cheers to you in any case.



Is there a saying, 'the darker the night, the brighter the dawn'?

I hope so,

Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2001 11:12:46 -0800
To: "Richard K. Moore" <•••@••.•••>
From: Rosa Zubizarreta <•••@••.•••>
Subject: Re: ->  Dispensing with hierarchy  <-

Thank you so much for this response to Warren that you
sent out to the list. I loved it.

it made explicit many things about your vision i had sensed
but had not heard so clearly from you before (though i admit i've not
managed to read everything on your site yet, so maybe it's all there
and i've just not seen it!)

all best wishes,


1/12/2001, Warren Wager wrote to WSN et al:
    > Returning to that archaic localized, self-sufficient
    economy and culture is out of the question for all but a
    handful of civilized folk.  They don't want to go there and
    they won't.  We live in a globalized interdependent world. 
    I want my white Burgundy and my Thai noodles for dinner. 
    Don't you?

Dear Warren,

I fear you leap to unwarrented conclusions.

The aspect of some hunter-gatherer societies that I
suggested emulating was _not their self-sufficiency, nor
their being bound to the local, but rather their liberty,
their egalitarian process, and their scalable
non-hierarchical power structure.  The point is to dispense
with hierarchy, not with trade.  The topic was politics, not

From the perspective of sustainability, we certainly want to
swing the balance back toward the local, if for no other
reason than to avoid excessive use of energy for transport. 
If today we depend, say, 20% on the local and 80% on the
global, then we need to move this more toward 80% local and
20% global.  And that global '20%' would be things of real
value or interest (White Burgundy), rather than things we
can grow or make in our own backyard.  I'm not saying that
we legislate this, but that things will naturally go this way 
once we install an economic system which reflects real costs
and real benefits, and which does not permit cartels and 

    > I believe that the only responsible answer to the world
    problematique at this juncture in time is a concerted,
    planet-wide political movement with structure, fighting
    force, and ideological consensus able to match and
    over-match the immense powers arrayed against it.

That is precisely what I've been describing.

    > The anarchist model, however it may be suited to a still
    later and, one hopes, more beneficent time, does not work
    for now.

How do you leap to _this conclusion?


From: Mofwoofoo Woofuaza <•••@••.•••>
Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2001 15:03:49 EST
Subject: Re: ->  Dispensing with hierarchy  <-
To: •••@••.•••, et al
Sender: •••@••.•••

    rkm>> Those 99%, with 'no commitment to revolutionary
    transformation' are, as you bluntly put it, ignorant of
    their circumstances.  This ignorance needs to be overcome.

Dear Richard,

I admire what you are attempting to do. I would like to
suggest a few things from my experience as a grassroots

1. Its not just a matter of ignorance, it more a case of
denial. Its not words thats going to wake up these people,
its a "critical mass" situation that will finally bring them
around. That's why I advocate building in a practical way,
non-hierarchical, low-tech, or high tech (if you can afford
it), sustainable communities now, starting with growing your
own food. (see <A
HREF=""> home
page</A>, under hyperlink "vertical aquaponics")

2. One thing you have not grasped yet, perhaps, is that
capitalism/hierarchies are tied in, in a big way, to
"sovereign entities" (i.e. nations, states, dictatorships,
corporations, governments, etc.). This things are taken for
granted. But in the world, you refer to before 10,000 years
ago, people didn't "own" land. As long as these sovereign
entities exist, we will continue to have all the problems we
have, if you think about it. You call for decentralization,
well, this is what I'm talking about too.

Most Organically,
Mofwoofoo Woofuaza
San Francisco


Dear Mofwoofoo,

I understand what you're saying about denial.  I'd put it
this way, speaking very roughly.  There are 5% who initiate,
20% who are early adapters, and 75% who never do anything
until they see their friends and neighbors doing it.  The
movement itself is what will attract most people, regardless
of the details of its program, and that is very frightening.
That's what enables things like fascism.

The 'sustainable communities now' movement is an important
part of the overall movement.  Those folks are doing the
research & development for the rest of us.  They are one of
the constituencies which can network in consensus with other
constituencies, and help build the fabric of the global
movement.  They ground the movement in economic reality.
Your 'sovereign entities' are all examples of hierarchy.

Down with The Wall!